Here’s a question from a recent national exit poll: “Which is closer to your view? Government
should do more. (Or) government is doing too much.” More voters said “too much” than said “not
enough.” Political analysts picked up that response and ran with it for days.

Has anyone noticed through all this that the question is meaningless? Government should do more
of what? Of what is government doing too much? These would seem important distinctions.

Ask me, and I’ll say that the federal government should do more in the areas of basic medical
research, Wall Street regulation, environmental protection, public transportation and space
exploration. But government does too much defense spending, insuring houses in flood-prone areas,
sending checks to farmers and harassing pot smokers (thank you, Colorado and Washington state).
Most Americans, I think, would supply mixed answers, given the opportunity.

Another exit poll question: “Do you think things in the country are . . . going in the right
direction? (Or) seriously off on the wrong track?” “Things” are clearly on the move.

In my view, employment, energy-efficient cars and the revised menu at Wendy’s are things going
in the right direction. But the projected deficits, global warming and declining civic engagement —
not so great.

“Do you consider yourself conservative or liberal?” is constantly asked. But the question raises
another question: How do we define left and right, conservative or liberal?

Some folks think they’re conservative because they want lower taxes. How they can advocate
cutting government revenues over the long term in the face of soaring deficits — and call
themselves fiscally conservative — is beyond me.

Many play the tax-cuts-always-create-growth game, but we don’t have to play with them. Tax
policy matters for growth, but how so depends on the current rates and economic conditions.
Economic growth does result in more revenues, but a government that shows itself willing to pay its
bills encourages investors.

There’s another exit poll question that everyone’s talking about: “Should some or all of the
Obama health-care law be repealed?” For the record, 49 percent responded that they wanted the law
partially or fully repealed. Only 44 percent wanted the law as-is or expanded.

But the public’s slim understanding of what’s in the health-care reforms makes these answers
useless. So it is pointless to direct policy on the basis of that poll question.

Also, giving respondents the option of saying “partially repealed” throws everything off. Many
of us like the parts that cost money (coverage of pre-existing conditions) but not the parts that
pay for the parts that cost money (the individual mandate). It was always thus.

It is a relief that the re-election of President Barack Obama and the retention of a Democratic
majority in the Senate will push the health-care reforms forward. And here’s a guarantee: Once they
are in effect — and Americans see that they’re getting great medical care at less cost (and with
less stress over losing coverage) — the demands for repeal will all but disappear.

Going full circle, back to the first exit poll question, I think curbing health-care costs is
something government should do more of. Paying for care that costs more than other equally
effective treatments is something it should do less of.

Meanwhile, expanded security in medical coverage is a thing that’s going in the right direction.
The inability of so many Americans to appreciate that is going in the wrong direction.